Skip to content
Project 2025
MissionTeamContact Us
Site Navigation
EventsResourcesOrganizations
Election 2024Electoral Reforms
BipartisanshipDemocracy
Rule of Law
Project 2025 Pop Culture
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
EventsResourcesOrganizations
Election 2024Electoral Reforms
BipartisanshipDemocracy
Rule of Law
Project 2025 Pop Culture
MissionTeamContact Us
Advisory BoardPrivacy
Follow Us:
Top Stories
David L. Nevins
09 March
Redistricting
The Fulcrum
01 January
Steven Hill
23 April
Project 2025: Reshaping American Justice Under Trump
Kristina Becvar
22 April
David L. Nevins
03 July 2024
Just the Facts: Courts’ Actions Against the Trump Administration
David L. Nevins
22 April
person in blue denim jeans and white sneakers standing on gray concrete floor
Photo by Phil Scroggs on Unsplash
By Jeremy GruberApr 26, 2025
Jeremy Gruber
See More Writings by author
Latest news
This Arbor Day, Remember Forests Were First Protected For Water
Laurie Wayburn
25 April
Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump’s Birthday and Flag Day Holiday Establishment Act
Jesse Rifkin
25 April
The Biggest Obstacle to Safer Roads Isn't Technology, It's Politics
Kevin Frazier
25 April
What I’m Thinking Now, as a Political Bridge-Builder and Democracy Reformer
Kristin Hansen
25 April
Read More
"Voter Here" sign outside of a polling location.
Getty Images, Grace Cary
Stopping the Descent Toward Banana Republic Elections
Kevin Johnson
Apr 18, 2025
President Trump’s election-related executive order begins by pointing out practices in Canada, Sweden, Brazil, and elsewhere that outperform the U.S. But it is Trump’s order itself that really demonstrates how far we’ve fallen behind. In none of the countries mentioned, or any other major democracy in the world, would the head of government change election rules by decree, as Trump has tried to do.
Trump is the leader of a political party that will fight for control of Congress in 2026, an election sure to be close, and important to his presidency. The leader of one side in such a competition has no business unilaterally changing its rules—that’s why executive decrees changing elections only happen in tinpot dictatorships, not democracies.
The Constitution is very clear: the states and Congress determine the time, place, and manner of elections, not the president. Trump’s decree will almost certainly be overruled in court. If not, America is in deep trouble.
Last week, Republicans in the House voted unanimously to pass the SAVE Act, which contains key elements of Trump’s order. The Act requires documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, meaning significant hassles for citizens who lack passports and birth certificates. The goal is to prevent voting by noncitizens even though many studies have found it’s vanishingly rare.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The full impact is hard to assess but certainly some citizens—of both parties—will lose their ability to vote. In other words, Republicans have chosen fealty to their leader’s false narrative over the rights of their own voters.
The Senate will likely stop the SAVE Act, just as the Supreme Court will likely overturn Trump’s decree. But it won’t be so easy to contain the downstream impact of what’s going on in Washington on state elections and the people who run them.
The oversight and management of state elections are in the hands of secretaries of state, county clerks, and state and county election board members. In nearly every state, these people are deeply connected to—and exposed to pressure from—one competing party or another.
America has long been able to trust that these individuals will abide by the norm of country over party and act with neutrality, even when laws don’t explicitly require they do so. But they now face major political pressure—and political incentives—to put their party first, not their country.
We’ve already seen the downstream impacts on this vulnerable election system of dangerous ideas at the national level. Following Trump’s assertion that the 2020 election was stolen, local officials in eight states baselessly refused to certify election results. Counties imposed deeply flawed ideas like hand-counting all ballots.
The secretary of state position, now a magnet for the politically ambitious, is most deeply vulnerable to the new distortions arising in our politicized election world. In 2022, thirty candidates ran for secretary of state while refusing to accept lawful presidential results. In 2023, eight secretaries of state took their states out of ERIC, the interstate data-sharing system critical to election integrity, just to win points with partisans and conspiracy theorists.
On both sides of the aisle, some secretaries of state have completely abandoned the neutrality their job requires. Ohio Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose probably changed the result of an anti-gerrymandering ballot initiative by imposing deeply deceptive ballot language. Colorado Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold acted with such overt partisanship during the presidential campaign that an impeachment resolution was filed against her.
Next year, elections will take place for secretary of state in 26 states. We shouldn’t be surprised if Republican candidates insist that elections can’t be legitimate without documentary proof of citizenship for registration, deeply undermining trust in the laws of their own states.
We need a huge neutrality campaign to ensure that secretaries of state and others in charge of elections act with strict public neutrality toward all candidates and referenda they oversee and with strict obedience to the rule of law. For the time being, this campaign will need to rely on voluntary commitments—but with enough persistence, maybe the question of “Are you committed to neutrality?” could factor into press coverage of secretary of state campaigns.
Next, we should move beyond voluntary commitments to enact state laws that explicitly require neutrality and enact state constitutional amendments that restructure key positions like chief election officer, election board member, and canvass board member to be less exposed to political pressure. Bipartisan public support is there to make this happen: voters on both sides strongly support impartiality from the people who run elections.
The bottom line is clear: we don’t need banana republic diktats from President Trump or banana republic loyalty from state election officials. But we do need a recommitment across the election ecosystem that puts our country before a party.
Kevin Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Trump Explained
Ira Chaleff
19 April
America’s Liz Truss Problem
Beau Breslin
21 April
Rule of Law
Fighting the Current Immigration Nightmare
Elisabet Avalos
23 April
Democracy
Call for a Constitutional Convention Veils Anti-Constitutionalism and Portends Political Chaos
Pat Merloe
18 April
Pop Culture
Navy Midshipmen’s Win Inspires Trump’s Vision of Strength
Bridget Erin Craig
19 April
Just the Facts: Trade Deficits
David L. Nevins
04 February
Getty Images, William Whitehurst
Most Americans’ Votes Don’t Matter in Deciding Elections
Ross Sherman
Apr 17, 2025
New research from the Unite America Institute confirms a stark reality: Most ballots cast in American elections don’t matter in deciding the outcome. In 2024, just 14% of eligible voters cast a meaningful vote that actually influenced the outcome of a U.S. House race. For state house races, on average across all 50 states, just 13% cast meaningful votes.
“Too many Americans have no real say in their democracy,” said Unite America Executive Director Nick Troiano. “Every voter deserves a ballot that not only counts, but that truly matters. We should demand better than ‘elections in name only.’”
Unite America’s new meaningful vote metric combines election turnout and competition data to reveal not just how many votes were cast but how many votes actually mattered in determining election outcomes. For example, earlier this month, there was a special election in Florida’s First Congressional District (FL-01) to replace former Rep. Matt Gaetz. Because FL-01 is a “safe” Republican district, none of the more-than-170,000 votes cast in the special general election were meaningful. The only meaningful votes were the 51,297 cast in the January primary—which is just 8% of all eligible voters in FL-01.
As the FL-01 example illustrates, the main driver of the lack of meaningful votes is a lack of competition. Nearly 90% of U.S. House and state house races were uncompetitive in 2024, meaning one party’s primary—where turnout is dismally low—is the only election that mattered. It gets worse: In 64% of state house races, zero meaningful votes were cast because both the primary and general elections lacked competition.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
When elections are essentially predetermined, lawmakers are incentivized to serve a narrow, unrepresentative faction of voters rather than the broader public. This helps explain why voters feel unheard—and why politicians fear being “primaried” more than losing a general election.
While the meaningful vote findings present a grim picture of the state of American democracy today, it also presents a potential solution. States that have adopted open, all-candidate primaries see more than double the share of meaningful votes compared to those with traditional party primaries. After Alaska implemented its all-candidate primary in 2022, its share of meaningful votes surged by nearly 60%. Post-election, lawmakers formed a cross-partisan governing majority—making progress on issues like education and the budget.
Opening primaries to independent voters also increases the potential for meaningful votes. Last week, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a law abolishing its closed primary system, giving more than 300,000 independent voters the right to vote in often-determinative primary elections. While the overall trend is toward states opening their primaries, 16 states still have fully closed primaries that bar 16.6 million independent voters from participating.
Ross Sherman is the Press Director for Unite America.
Keep ReadingShow less
Getty Images, monkeybusinessimages
We Can Fix This: Our Politics Really Can Work – These Stories Show How
Meredith Sumpter
Alan Durning
Apr 15, 2025
As American politics polarizes ever further, voters across the political spectrum agree that our current system is not delivering for the American people. Eighty-five percent of Americans feel most elected officials don’t care what people like them think. Eighty-eight percent of them say our political system is broken.
Whether it’s the quality and safety of their kids’ schools, housing affordability and rising homelessness, scarce and pricey healthcare, or any number of other issues that touch Americans’ everyday lives, the lived experience of polarization comes from such problems—and elected officials’ failure to address them.
But what if there were tools to change that? And what if they worked in places as different as deep-blue, urban Portland, Oregon and the rugged, reddish state of Alaska?
Good news: there are.
In Alaska, voters have opted to elect their state leaders using open, all-candidate primaries and ranked choice voting. This system was implemented in 2022 and, from its start, has delivered a mixed slate of winners who better match Alaskans’ own political makeup. The system has returned more power to voters rather than parties, with more than half of midterm voters opting to split their tickets between candidates from across the political spectrum; a majority felt their vote “mattered more” than in previous elections.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
But what about more tangible outcomes for Alaskans’ everyday lives? The 2024 election delivered a similarly mixed slate of winners—who instantly formed bipartisan coalitions in both state legislative chambers to get to work on the challenges their constituents care about. The House just passed a long-term education spending increase; a Senate panel has proposed a new formula to help balance the state budget while preserving the popular Permanent Fund Dividend; and lawmakers joined together to preserve federal funding for subsidized rural internet and phone service—all on a bipartisan basis and all promising real benefits for Alaskans.
A world away, in Portland, Oregon, residents voted to change their system, too. They expanded their council from just five citywide members to 12 councilors, divided equally among four districts, with their mayor and council elected by ranked choice voting.
So, what did that deliver? In short: the city’s most representative council ever. Eighty-four percent of voters saw at least one candidate they ranked on their ballot win a seat. The resulting council looks strikingly more like the city itself, with homeowners serving alongside renters, pro-business moderates alongside progressives, more women and people of color, and members from age 28 to 70. For mayor, voters chose Keith Wilson, a trucking company CEO who built a wide-ranging majority coalition, including residents from business, labor union, and environmentalism sectors.
New polling found that most Portlanders prefer the new system. Overwhelming majorities felt it would better represent their part of the city and that ranked choice voting let them better express their preferences. As in Alaska, more than half said they felt their vote mattered more than in prior elections.
But what matters most is change on the ground. While it’s early days for the mayor and council who just took office in January, they’re already making moves on homelessness, high housing costs, and infrastructure. Even the “real Ted Lasso vibes” of the new mayor are contagious, with residents of one long-underserved neighborhood voicing optimism after a recent local repair: “It shows neighbors that this new form of government is going to work. That’s my optimism. It’s going to work.”
There’s no mystery here. Voters in Alaska and Portland got more and better candidates in their ranked choice elections. And the winners of those elections, their newly elected leaders, are working together across party lines to get things done for their constituents. Because ranked choice systems reward candidates who can win—and serve—a majority of us, these leaders can focus on governing rather than grandstanding.
The real winners, of course, are Alaskans and Portlanders whose daily lives can benefit from the outcomes of a more collaborative and less performative politics. These promising reforms are also a win for the democracy we so treasure as a society. At a time when many are feeling disconnected from their government, places like Alaska and Portland offer inspiration.
So, will your state or city be next?
Meredith Sumpter is the president and CEO of FairVote, a nonpartisan organization seeking better elections.
Alan Durning is the founder and executive director of Sightline Institute, a nonpartisan think tank on democracy, housing, and energy issues in the Pacific Northwest.
Keep ReadingShow less
text
Photo by Dan Dennis on Unsplash
Why America’s Elections Will Never Be the Same After Trump
Robert Cropf
Apr 06, 2025
Donald Trump wasted no time when he returned to the White House. Within hours, he signed over 200 executive orders, rapidly dismantling years of policy and consolidating control with the stroke of a pen. But the frenzy of reversals was only the surface. Beneath it lies a deeper, more troubling transformation: presidential elections have become all-or-nothing battles, where the victor rewrites the rules of government and the loser’s agenda is annihilated.
And it’s not just the orders. Trump’s second term has unleashed sweeping deportations, the purging of federal agencies, and a direct assault on the professional civil service. With the revival of Schedule F, regulatory rollbacks, and the targeting of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, the federal bureaucracy is being rigged to serve partisan ideology. Backing him is a GOP-led Congress, too cowardly—or too complicit—to assert its constitutional authority.
This was no improvisation. Trump’s blitz follows a playbook: Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s sweeping plan to, in its own words, "dismantle the administrative state" and rebuild the executive branch with "loyalists prepared to carry out the new president’s agenda from Day One" (Heritage Foundation). Even compared to Franklin Roosevelt’s wartime mobilization or George W. Bush’s post-9/11 national security expansions, the scope and ideological intent of Trump’s agenda mark a radical break—not in response to crisis but an effort to permanently transform the structure of American governance.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
It’s important to step back to examine what’s really at stake: the collapse of agency independence, the normalization of policy reversals after every election, and the growing threat that democratic institutions will be hollowed out and repurposed to serve a single political movement. If elections now determine everything, democracy may no longer be able to survive them.
Presidents once needed Congress to pass major legislation. That was the constitutional design: ambition countering ambition, with policymaking forged through negotiation and compromise. Yes, it was slow, but it ensured that decisions were closely scrutinized. But in today’s executive-centered system, presidents can reshape vast areas of public policy overnight—through executive orders, emergency declarations, and agency directives. This shift doesn’t just sideline lawmakers; it hollows out the very idea of coequal branches. Executive command has replaced legislative debate, and bipartisan dealmaking has given way to partisan loyalty tests.
With a GOP majority more committed to shielding the president than preserving its own institutional role, Congress has become increasingly passive—less a check on power than a rubber stamp. Rather than asserting their authority, Republican lawmakers have begun cutting side deals with the administration to protect favored programs in their districts, even as Trump excludes Democratic members from key negotiations (New York Times). The result is a system where executive favoritism replaces legislative oversight, and millions of Americans are left vulnerable to cuts their representatives have no power to reverse.
This turns elections into existential contests. Winning now means total control over policy, personnel, and the machinery of government. Losing means being locked out of decision-making and left with no recourse. As Trump bypasses Congress to implement sweeping changes, the presidency begins to eclipse all other institutions in the public mind. Voters increasingly view the White House not as one branch of government, but as the only one that matters. As power concentrates at the top, down-ballot races fade into the background. State legislatures, local officials, and even Congress are increasingly seen as powerless. This erodes not just democratic accountability but the very idea of representative government.
The consequences are already visible. In the 2024 elections, turnout for state and local races dropped significantly in several battleground states, even as presidential turnout remained high. In Arizona, a state heavily affected by Trump’s immigration policies, voters who opposed those policies nonetheless skipped local races where sheriffs and school boards had real influence over enforcement. When people believe only the president can change their lives, they disengage from the very levels of government most capable of protecting their interests.
The psychological toll of this dynamic is profound. With each election framed as a fight for national survival, compromise becomes betrayal, and losing becomes catastrophic. In the 2024 elections, turnout for state and local races plummeted in several battleground states, even as presidential turnout soared (Wikipedia). In Arizona, a state deeply impacted by Trump’s immigration policies, voters who opposed those policies still skipped local races where sheriffs and school boards wielded real power over enforcement. When people believe only the president can address existential threats, they disengage from the very levels of government most capable of safeguarding their interests.
The 2024 presidential campaign illustrated this vividly. Both parties warned that democracy itself was on the ballot. Trump’s rhetoric painted his opponents as enemies of the state, while Democratic leaders described a second Trump term as a path to authoritarianism. Once contentious but deliberative, Supreme Court confirmations have become frenzied battles precisely because so much now hinges on who controls the executive. As the stakes escalate, the room for governance by consensus disappears.
The consequences go beyond politics—they threaten the very foundations of democracy. The system becomes fragile when the presidency is seen as the only institution that matters and elections as existential battles. Trust in institutions crumbles: only 16% of Americans trust the federal government, down from 73% in 1958 (Pew, 2023). Confidence in the Supreme Court has plunged to 41% (Gallup, 2023), and trust in Congress remains below 20%. Long-term policymaking collapses, and civic engagement narrows to presidential spectacle. Democracy doesn’t fail all at once—it decays from within.
Robert Cropf is aProfessor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
Advisory BoardPrivacy
©Copyright 2025
